Sexual harassment in specific industries can become the subject of particular public attention when employees speak out about their experiences. This has certainly been true of the financial sector, with many accounts of firm cultures that condone or even encourage harassment of employees in New York City. Sexual harassment, however, is hardly limited to any one industry or region. The technology industry in California has been the most recent recipient of public scrutiny, after allegations of rampant sexual harassment in one major tech company gained wide attention. A lawsuit filed against another prominent Silicon Valley company has kept focus on the region. The lawsuit alleges “pervasive harassment” of female employees, as well as wage disparities and lack of opportunities for promotions. The defendant eventually fired the plaintiff, stating that an internal investigation found her claims to be baseless. Despite this, the lawsuit continues, and it has reportedly inspired others to speak up.

Laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and other factors. The protections against sex discrimination go beyond prohibitions against blatantly discriminatory practices like refusing to hire someone because of their gender. Courts have found that sexual harassment constitutes unlawful sex discrimination when it involves a demand for some sort of sexual activity or favor in exchange for some employment benefit, or when the harassment is pervasive or severe enough to create a hostile work environment. An employer may be liable for harassment perpetrated by a supervisor or manager. If the alleged harasser is not in a supervisory or managerial position over the recipient, the employer may still be liable if it learns of the harassment and fails to take remedial action.

In 2013, the plaintiff in the lawsuit mentioned above began working for the defendant, which designs, manufactures, and sells electric cars. She eventually received a promotion to a position in the general assembly department as an engineer at the company’s factory in Fremont, California. She was reportedly one of the only women in the department, and she alleges that she received less pay than the male engineers she replaced. She further alleges that less qualified male engineers were promoted over her, that management ignored her reports about problems with quality testing of new vehicles, and that she faced retaliation for those reports.

As one of very few women in her department, the plaintiff alleges that she was the recipient of “unwelcome and pervasive harassment by men on the factory floor,” which partly consisted of “inappropriate language, whistling, and catcalls.” She describes one incident from 2015, when she was on the factory floor with a female co-worker, and a large group of men standing on a platform above them allegedly began “hooting and hollering and whistling” at them. She filed her lawsuit in the fall of 2016, while she was still employed there as an engineer.

The lawsuit gained substantial public attention when the plaintiff gave an interview to the Guardian in February 2017. The defendant terminated her in May, claiming that an investigation by “a neutral, third-party expert” had found her claims to be unfounded. The plaintiff argues that the termination was further retaliation against her.

Phillips & Associates’ experienced and skilled sexual harassment attorneys fight for the rights of job applicants, employees, and former employees in New York City. We help our clients assert claims for unlawful workplace practices like sexual harassment. Contact us today online or at (212) 248-7431 to schedule a free and confidential consultation to discuss your case.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISINGThe information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Any testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.